US Vice President Kamala Harris is hardly the first politician in history, or in the past three minutes, to sidestep questions she does not want to answer or to seek refuge in platitudes. However, on foreign policy especially, the vice president and candidate to succeed US President Joe Biden is showing remarkable, ahem, discipline in saying nothing compromising, and therefore nothing substantive at all. Too bad, because the US’ voters, allies and adversaries would love to know, if not what she might do, at least how she thinks.
One case in point is the biggest national security controversy of the past year: Israel’s escalating war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran. In theory, Harris is aligned with Biden in pledging “ironclad” support for Israel while also urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to show restraint and proportionality, and to define some kind of strategy for the “day after.” In practice, the White House has proven only that it has no sway with Netanyahu at all.
Pressed repeatedly about the implications, Harris only reveals that diplomacy with Netanyahu is an “ongoing pursuit.” How reassuring, at a time when people worry about a slide into World War III.
Asked whether Netanyahu is even an ally, she deflects: “The better question is: Do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people? And the answer to that question is yes.”
That part, of course, everybody already knew. The question is about how the world’s last remaining superpower, such as it is, should deal with a recalcitrant, problematic and indeed rogue ally, to avoid getting drawn into quagmires or conflagrations not in the US’ interest. Her thoughts on that conundrum might also offer clues about her views on alliances in Asia and Europe. Guess not.
She is better in talking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but only marginally. There, she has the advantage that her opponent, former US president Donald Trump, is over-the-top wrong in his head and his heart, preferring to flirt with or kowtow before Russian President Vladimir Putin while talking down to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. (According to investigative journalist Bob Woodward, Trump in 2020 even sent scarce COVID-19 tests to Putin for personal use to ingratiate himself and has spoken privately to the dictator this year.) Absurdly, Trump keeps claiming if he becomes president again, he would end the war in a day.
“You know what that is?” Harris correctly says about Trump’s boast. “It’s about surrender.”
So would Harris also meet with Putin to strike a peace deal?
“Not bilaterally without Ukraine, no,” she says. “Ukraine must have a say in the future of Ukraine.” So far, so good (and so obvious).
On to the next step: Would she embrace Ukraine into NATO to deter future aggression by Russia?
“Those are all issues we will deal with if and when [they] arise, at that point,” she evades.
Come again? This question first arose in 2008 and has been urgent and central since 2022. There are excellent reasons for a potential commander-in-chief not to commit to an answer, before peace talks have started. Then again, that is exactly what she should explain, while offering glimpses into her analysis of the scenarios.
On the US’ other big challenges across the globe she is even more vague. Of course, she also wants to compete with and contain China (does anybody in Washington not, these days?), but how, and at what cost? How does she think about Russia, China, Iran and North Korea forming a de facto “axis” against the US? She offers no clue. The new nuclear arms race? Ditto. Africa and the Global South? Do not even bother.
We could put her obfuscation down to shrewd campaign tactics against a candidate, Trump, who has no lucid answer to any world problem beyond ludicrous hallucinations that such crises would never have arisen if he had remained in the White House.
We could also blame her inexperience in international affairs. As a former prosecutor, state attorney general and senator, she earned her chops in domestic policy. Then again, she has had more than three years as second-in-line to the Resolute Desk, during which time she received good advice from experts.
While these two explanations carry some weight, there is a third, which goes deeper. Harris, more than Biden and Trump, grasps intuitively that the world has changed. A US president in the bipolar system of the Cold War could express a foreign policy vision and hope to achieve it.
That was even more true of his successors during the “unipolar” moment after the Cold War, when the US had uncontested primacy. Nowadays, though, the international system is devolving either to multipolarity, with many powers jostling for supremacy, or worse, to no discernible polarity at all, meaning chaos.
The statesman who best describes this unraveling is UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Reflecting on the descent into violence in so many places at once and the shredding of the UN Charter, without anybody (meaning the US, mainly) doing anything about it, he recently said humanity is “in a purgatory of polarity.” It is a mixed metaphor, but I like the phrase, and not only because it has alliteration, consonance and assonance all at once; it hits the spot.
The real reason why candidate Harris would not explain what she would try to do in foreign policy as president is that she knows she probably would not succeed in doing it. This might make her more humble than any recent predecessor.
It also turns her presidency, as well as US diplomacy and grand strategy, into a blank sheet — a sheet of paper about to get singed in the global purgatory.
Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS